Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Please Help - Only 1 vote and its a Votebomb

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is only 1 vote and it is a vote bomb.

I am posting it here so it won't get buried by dylancatlow's spam

http://www.debate.org...

He gave a fake RFD

"1)Correlation and Causation: Con"s argument that more robust correlation does not make causation more likely is blatantly false, which is bad enough, but his arguments actually support a causation between CO2 and temperature, it"s merely the opposite of what most relevant scientists think it is. As Pro points out, Con"s arguments appear to lack understanding of how different layers of the atmosphere works.

2)Ocean temperatures and CO2: Con argues that oceans are emitting CO2. Pro points out that half our emissions are soaked up by the oceans, and that the CO2 rise isn"t really tied to temperature variations. Pro wins.

3)Past climate: Climate doesn"t change without something influencing it. The fact that it has changed in the past is more or less irrelevant to what is currently causing it to change.

4)The sun: First problem is immediately obvious: Con"s first graph has no y-scale. This makes the whole thing more or less worthless. While it"s true that the sun is the biggest factor regarding climate, that doesn"t mean it"s causing global warming."

--------------------

1.) As I mentioned in my rebuttal a strong correlation does not make causation more likely it makes a relationship more likely. If they had a common cause, there will still be a strong relation despite no causation. In order to prove causation, you need to prove both a strong relation and that the effect lagged the cause. I proved global CO2 lagged global temperature both in recent years and at the end of the last ice age. The current lag is "11 to 12 months", while at the end of the ice age "CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years".

2.) He ignored my rebuttal
From the debate: "Pro claims that humans are responsible for 16 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and 14 billion tons of CO2 in the ocean. Once again, there are 720 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and there are 36 trillion tons of CO2 in the Ocean. Thus Humans would only be responsible for 2% of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 0.04% of CO2 in the ocean."

3.) The reason I brought up historical trends was to prove the temp and CO2 level was not unusual.

4.) This image http://www.debate.org... does have a Y axis; the Y axis is global temp
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:40:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"does have a Y axis; the Y axis is global temp"

Technically it does have a Y axis, but as there are no markings on said axis, it's literally worthless. It could be used to represent anything.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:46:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:40:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"does have a Y axis; the Y axis is global temp"

Technically it does have a Y axis, but as there are no markings on said axis, it's literally worthless. It could be used to represent anything.

The title is "Global Temperatures 2500 BC to 2040 AD"
Seeing as the X axis is labeled "2500 BC to 2040 AD", the Y axis represents "Global Temperatures".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:48:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Graphs should not be a determining factor in a debate, because they only serve as visuals aids for the textual arguments.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 12:52:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
There is only 1 vote and it is a vote bomb.

Since a voter who agrees with you plans to vote, I really see no need for the freak out--I suspect the debate will go your way (eve though I don't think it should) when he and others vote, but I may be pleasantly surprised.


I am posting it here so it won't get buried by dylancatlow's spam


http://www.debate.org...

He gave a fake RFD


"1)Correlation and Causation: Con"s argument that more robust correlation does not make causation more likely is blatantly false, which is bad enough, but his arguments actually support a causation between CO2 and temperature, it"s merely the opposite of what most relevant scientists think it is. As Pro points out, Con"s arguments appear to lack understanding of how different layers of the atmosphere works.

2)Ocean temperatures and CO2: Con argues that oceans are emitting CO2. Pro points out that half our emissions are soaked up by the oceans, and that the CO2 rise isn"t really tied to temperature variations. Pro wins.

3)Past climate: Climate doesn"t change without something influencing it. The fact that it has changed in the past is more or less irrelevant to what is currently causing it to change.

4)The sun: First problem is immediately obvious: Con"s first graph has no y-scale. This makes the whole thing more or less worthless. While it"s true that the sun is the biggest factor regarding climate, that doesn"t mean it"s causing global warming."

--------------------

1.) As I mentioned in my rebuttal a strong correlation does not make causation more likely it makes a relationship more likely. If they had a common cause, there will still be a strong relation despite no causation. In order to prove causation, you need to prove both a strong relation and that the effect lagged the cause. I proved global CO2 lagged global temperature both in recent years and at the end of the last ice age. The current lag is "11 to 12 months", while at the end of the ice age "CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years".

Actually, you did not bring up the 11-12 month lag until the last round, which is actually annoying because it does not give me a chance to respond. You did not bring up the current lag until he last round, and should be discounted.

Now, I am the one who said it lagged 200 years, it is you who chose to use other estimates from the same source. The source itself doubts those estimates. The source also explains that the lag of less than 200 years is not significant and still contributed large amount to that warming--I cited that study itself. And I actually did read the article, btw, and the study itself. It refutes your entire contention.


2.) He ignored my rebuttal
From the debate: "Pro claims that humans are responsible for 16 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and 14 billion tons of CO2 in the ocean. Once again, there are 720 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and there are 36 trillion tons of CO2 in the Ocean. Thus Humans would only be responsible for 2% of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 0.04% of CO2 in the ocean."

This was refuted also. As I noted, the natural carbon cycle has mechanisms which help counter the imbalances. The extra added anthropogenic CO2 is created outside this carbon cycle. Although the human output from CO2 is minor compared to the overall CO2 content of the atmosphere, the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic because nature cannot absorb the extra weight. I explain this more in depth in my final rebuttal.


3.) The reason I brought up historical trends was to prove the temp and CO2 level was not unusual.

That doesn't refute the vote. You failed to show a valid natural mechanism for the modern warming. Past temperature can change, but it tells us nothing of the modern mechanism unless we know of a natural mechanism today.


4.) This image http://www.debate.org... does have a Y axis; the Y axis is global temp

No it doesn't. It has a Y axis but does not show the temperature changes, scale, etc. That is what he was saying.
---
Again, Subutai will soon vote and he has a CON bias so chill. Regardless of my response, just chill. We have a VB section, btw.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:18:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:52:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/19/2013 12:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
There is only 1 vote and it is a vote bomb.

Since a voter who agrees with you plans to vote, I really see no need for the freak out--I suspect the debate will go your way (eve though I don't think it should) when he and others vote, but I may be pleasantly surprised.

Just because someone else plans to vote, does not mean a vote bomb should be tolerated. I don't care if they agree with me, what I care about is that they remain impartial.

I am posting it here so it won't get buried by dylancatlow's spam


http://www.debate.org...

He gave a fake RFD


"1)Correlation and Causation: Con"s argument that more robust correlation does not make causation more likely is blatantly false, which is bad enough, but his arguments actually support a causation between CO2 and temperature, it"s merely the opposite of what most relevant scientists think it is. As Pro points out, Con"s arguments appear to lack understanding of how different layers of the atmosphere works.

2)Ocean temperatures and CO2: Con argues that oceans are emitting CO2. Pro points out that half our emissions are soaked up by the oceans, and that the CO2 rise isn"t really tied to temperature variations. Pro wins.

3)Past climate: Climate doesn"t change without something influencing it. The fact that it has changed in the past is more or less irrelevant to what is currently causing it to change.

4)The sun: First problem is immediately obvious: Con"s first graph has no y-scale. This makes the whole thing more or less worthless. While it"s true that the sun is the biggest factor regarding climate, that doesn"t mean it"s causing global warming."

--------------------

1.) As I mentioned in my rebuttal a strong correlation does not make causation more likely it makes a relationship more likely. If they had a common cause, there will still be a strong relation despite no causation. In order to prove causation, you need to prove both a strong relation and that the effect lagged the cause. I proved global CO2 lagged global temperature both in recent years and at the end of the last ice age. The current lag is "11 to 12 months", while at the end of the ice age "CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years".

Actually, you did not bring up the 11-12 month lag until the last round, which is actually annoying because it does not give me a chance to respond. You did not bring up the current lag until he last round, and should be discounted.

Actually I did bring it up earlier, but I did not give a specific number for the recent lag until the last round.

Now, I am the one who said it lagged 200 years, it is you who chose to use other estimates from the same source. The source itself doubts those estimates.
It lowered the 1,400 year lag to less than 200 year. The point of that argument was to show a lag, not to show a 1,400 year lag. A 100-200 year lag is still a significant lag.
The source also explains that the lag of less than 200 years is not significant and still contributed large amount to that warming--I cited that study itself.
It does not say that.
And I actually did read the article, btw, and the study itself. It refutes your entire contention.

No it doesn't.

2.) He ignored my rebuttal
From the debate: "Pro claims that humans are responsible for 16 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and 14 billion tons of CO2 in the ocean. Once again, there are 720 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and there are 36 trillion tons of CO2 in the Ocean. Thus Humans would only be responsible for 2% of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 0.04% of CO2 in the ocean."

This was refuted also.
No it wasn't
As I noted, the natural carbon cycle has mechanisms which help counter the imbalances. The extra added anthropogenic CO2 is created outside this carbon cycle. Although the human output from CO2 is minor compared to the overall CO2 content of the atmosphere, the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic because nature cannot absorb the extra weight. I explain this more in depth in my final rebuttal.

You said 40% of the 2% of CO2 is absorbed. This does not change the fact that compared to natural increases in CO2, that 2% is insignificant. As I pointed out when CO2 was "7000 ppm the global temp was only 22 "C", thus the effect of 8 PPM would cause essentially no change in the greenhouse effect.

3.) The reason I brought up historical trends was to prove the temp and CO2 level was not unusual.

That doesn't refute the vote. You failed to show a valid natural mechanism for the modern warming. Past temperature can change, but it tells us nothing of the modern mechanism unless we know of a natural mechanism today.

You mean other than the sun? I think my arguments regarding the sun was sufficient. Again, he didn't even mention my arguments, or the shared BOP. To assume a RFD that was not listed in the RF is fallacious.

4.) This image http://www.debate.org... does have a Y axis; the Y axis is global temp

No it doesn't. It has a Y axis but does not show the temperature changes, scale, etc. That is what he was saying.
---
The point of the chart was not to show temperature increases/decreases, but rather to show the impact of natural events on temp. The chart was a visual aid, and should not be counted as an argument within itself
Again, Subutai will soon vote and he has a CON bias so chill. Regardless of my response, just chill. We have a VB section, btw.
I don't want any bias What so ever. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:23:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:52:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We have a VB section, btw.

As I mentioned above, it was spammed by dylancatlow
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:48:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You must be an idiot of you think that's a vote bomb DanT...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 1:59:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 12:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
There is only 1 vote and it is a vote bomb.

I am posting it here so it won't get buried by dylancatlow's spam


http://www.debate.org...

He gave a fake RFD


"1)Correlation and Causation: Con"s argument that more robust correlation does not make causation more likely is blatantly false, which is bad enough, but his arguments actually support a causation between CO2 and temperature, it"s merely the opposite of what most relevant scientists think it is. As Pro points out, Con"s arguments appear to lack understanding of how different layers of the atmosphere works.

2)Ocean temperatures and CO2: Con argues that oceans are emitting CO2. Pro points out that half our emissions are soaked up by the oceans, and that the CO2 rise isn"t really tied to temperature variations. Pro wins.

3)Past climate: Climate doesn"t change without something influencing it. The fact that it has changed in the past is more or less irrelevant to what is currently causing it to change.

4)The sun: First problem is immediately obvious: Con"s first graph has no y-scale. This makes the whole thing more or less worthless. While it"s true that the sun is the biggest factor regarding climate, that doesn"t mean it"s causing global warming."

--------------------

1.) As I mentioned in my rebuttal a strong correlation does not make causation more likely it makes a relationship more likely. If they had a common cause, there will still be a strong relation despite no causation. In order to prove causation, you need to prove both a strong relation and that the effect lagged the cause. I proved global CO2 lagged global temperature both in recent years and at the end of the last ice age. The current lag is "11 to 12 months", while at the end of the ice age "CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years".

2.) He ignored my rebuttal
From the debate: "Pro claims that humans are responsible for 16 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and 14 billion tons of CO2 in the ocean. Once again, there are 720 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and there are 36 trillion tons of CO2 in the Ocean. Thus Humans would only be responsible for 2% of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 0.04% of CO2 in the ocean."

3.) The reason I brought up historical trends was to prove the temp and CO2 level was not unusual.

4.) This image http://www.debate.org... does have a Y axis; the Y axis is global temp

It's not a vote bomb. It's an explanation of why he found your argument poorer than that of your opponent's. That you disagree with his explanation does not make it a vote bomb.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 2:05:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 1:23:20 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 12:52:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
We have a VB section, btw.

As I mentioned above, it was spammed by dylancatlow

Soiled. Just soiled. Irreconcilable devastation.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 3:29:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Huh. I missed this.

Maybe I should explain what happened.

I printed out the debate the night before I voted and read it carefully. I had no access to sources. Without any ability to read the sources (and ideally doing so wouldn't be necessary to evaluate arguments), I had no way of knowing that 16kadam's argument that:

"So, since CO2 has preceded modern temperature (and some older temperatures) [1]."

was in fact not supported by his source (at least, that I could find; I could be wrong).

Now, when I did look at sources later, in part because people were questioning my vote, I went and looked at Con's sources too, in part out of curiosity. After further digging, I found problems, summarized in these links:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com...
http://www.sciencedirect.com...
http://troyca.wordpress.com...

This leaves me with a problem. While Pro didn't attack Con's sources, he couldn't have (since it was in the last round), and furthermore I'm not sure that our own knowledge regarding what a study actually says shouldn't enter at all into what we think of it.

For instance, if I cite a source in a homosexuality debate in a round where my opponent can't reply that claims that homosexuality is actually good for you, but relies on orgone theory, can I discount it? What if it relies on statistics that I know to be faulty?

I can't pass my own judgement regarding arguments--that is to say, I can't insert my own reasons for opposing something into the side I'm voting for--but what about sources? Can a source be so discredited as to make arguments relying on its data meaningless? Are we allowed to using critical thinking regarding sources to influence our vote regarding arguments?

I don't know, so I have no changed my vote.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 5:25:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 1:18:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2013 12:52:13 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 5/19/2013 12:32:00 PM, DanT wrote:
There is only 1 vote and it is a vote bomb.

Since a voter who agrees with you plans to vote, I really see no need for the freak out--I suspect the debate will go your way (eve though I don't think it should) when he and others vote, but I may be pleasantly surprised.

Just because someone else plans to vote, does not mean a vote bomb should be tolerated. I don't care if they agree with me, what I care about is that they remain impartial.

See, you won, exactly as I predicted. Even though I dont agree with the outcome.


1.) As I mentioned in my rebuttal a strong correlation does not make causation more likely it makes a relationship more likely. If they had a common cause, there will still be a strong relation despite no causation. In order to prove causation, you need to prove both a strong relation and that the effect lagged the cause. I proved global CO2 lagged global temperature both in recent years and at the end of the last ice age. The current lag is "11 to 12 months", while at the end of the ice age "CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years".

Actually, you did not bring up the 11-12 month lag until the last round, which is actually annoying because it does not give me a chance to respond. You did not bring up the current lag until he last round, and should be discounted.

Actually I did bring it up earlier, but I did not give a specific number for the recent lag until the last round.

lol. The fact you didn't back it up or specify it until last round merely shows how you didn't want a response. If someone says something but doesn't give any merit to it I don't respond, its fairly simple. And no you didnt. You cited the CO2science.org article which I have read... and it is talking about past climate. You really dont talk about the modern lag until last round. This is really a moot and should not have been counted in any vote.


Now, I am the one who said it lagged 200 years, it is you who chose to use other estimates from the same source. The source itself doubts those estimates.
It lowered the 1,400 year lag to less than 200 year. The point of that argument was to show a lag, not to show a 1,400 year lag. A 100-200 year lag is still a significant lag.
The source also explains that the lag of less than 200 years is not significant and still contributed large amount to that warming--I cited that study itself.
It does not say that.
And I actually did read the article, btw, and the study itself. It refutes your entire contention.

hahahahaha. Your brain must automatically cherry pick things. "We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies." http://www.sciencemag.org...

I didn't cite this exact quote, but the overall sketch of the study was included. Again, stop making bullsh!t excuses to saying that the source supported your theory.


No it doesn't.

2.) He ignored my rebuttal
From the debate: "Pro claims that humans are responsible for 16 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and 14 billion tons of CO2 in the ocean. Once again, there are 720 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, and there are 36 trillion tons of CO2 in the Ocean. Thus Humans would only be responsible for 2% of CO2 in the atmosphere, and 0.04% of CO2 in the ocean."

This was refuted also.
No it wasn't
As I noted, the natural carbon cycle has mechanisms which help counter the imbalances. The extra added anthropogenic CO2 is created outside this carbon cycle. Although the human output from CO2 is minor compared to the overall CO2 content of the atmosphere, the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic because nature cannot absorb the extra weight. I explain this more in depth in my final rebuttal.

You said 40% of the 2% of CO2 is absorbed. This does not change the fact that compared to natural increases in CO2, that 2% is insignificant. As I pointed out when CO2 was "7000 ppm the global temp was only 22 "C", thus the effect of 8 PPM would cause essentially no change in the greenhouse effect.

Do you not understand the carbon cycle? It naturally warmed from 1850 - 1950. The Human emissions were being soaked by the ocean. Now, they too are being soaked up. The Ocean, warmer than in the LIA, then sucks in tat 40% but also emits more than it usually does. That is a basic carbon cycle. Therefore the human effect after the natural warming is pretty significant. And not to mention you dropped my whole argument about positive feedbacks, possibly the most important part of the debate.


3.) The reason I brought up historical trends was to prove the temp and CO2 level was not unusual.

That doesn't refute the vote. You failed to show a valid natural mechanism for the modern warming. Past temperature can change, but it tells us nothing of the modern mechanism unless we know of a natural mechanism today.

You mean other than the sun? I think my arguments regarding the sun was sufficient. Again, he didn't even mention my arguments, or the shared BOP. To assume a RFD that was not listed in the RF is fallacious.

4.) This image http://www.debate.org... does have a Y axis; the Y axis is global temp

No it doesn't. It has a Y axis but does not show the temperature changes, scale, etc. That is what he was saying.
---
The point of the chart was not to show temperature increases/decreases, but rather to show the impact of natural events on temp. The chart was a visual aid, and should not be counted as an argument within itself
That's dumb. The pictures were like half of the space you used in the debate. Pictures, although visual aids, are arguments. Lets say I showed the hockeystick vs the MWP graphs. I say look, warming is not as significant as the hockeystick says. Then the pictures are an argument. Your case was "look, its not that unnatural" and you spam graphs. That counts as arguments. It's kinda retarded that you aren't grasping this.

Again, Subutai will soon vote and he has a CON bias so chill. Regardless of my response, just chill. We have a VB section, btw.
I don't want any bias What so ever. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Well, lol, I could list a plethora of problems with that vote. But I wont. I am not going to get my pants and a twist, make a forum, and cry over the internet. Its a F'n website. Its not a debate on CNN.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2013 8:49:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/19/2013 5:25:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:
That's dumb. The pictures were like half of the space you used in the debate.
Pictures take up no character space. I use pictures for visual aids, that's it. I frown on people who use them, or loo at them, as an argument within itself. Human communication is not only verbal but also visual; when that visual aspect is lost communication becomes harder. The point of my charts, and mu pictures, is to serve as a visual aid to help people understand my arguments.

Pictures, although visual aids, are arguments. Lets say I showed the hockeystick vs the MWP graphs. I say look, warming is not as significant as the hockeystick says.
In a debate you should not say "look at this", you should explain in your argument what they should know, not make them put 2 and 2 together. You can reference the chart in your argument, but don't use it as an argument.

Then the pictures are an argument. Your case was "look, its not that unnatural" and you spam graphs. That counts as arguments. It's kinda retarded that you aren't grasping this.

If you look at my arguments, not once did I use the graphs as an argument. The graphs meshed with my arguments, but if you take away the graphs my arguments would not lose their strength. The graphs only allowed for a visual aid, to help people understand the concepts conveyed in my arguments.

For example, when I said "According to studies, man is only responsible for 3.225% of CO2, which is close to the 2% figure received from Pro"s data. Water vapor also accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gases." I provided the following visual aids;
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

While the visual aids help drive the point, they don't say anything that wasn't said in the actual argument. The visual aids only help people grasp the concepts.

Most people don't have the cognitive ability to visualize concepts in their head. I am able to do it, because my strength is in concepts. My cognitive weakness is in remembering dates, and names. Everyone is different, but visuals help people grasp those concepts, when they are unable to do it in their mind.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle